(Which should be used in every "Haw haw you can't shoot me, I have a hostage!" -situation but never is)

I think at least one Star Trek show did this.

But yeah, stun blasters are tragically underused. Particularly by police: even the dystopia of Pyscho Pass has their guns set to stun as the default and they have to get permission to use the kill mode.

Or Jedi even: what is more civilized about hacking someone's arm off compared to stunning them?

It's been argued quite plausibly that the Helghast have more claim to being the heroes in Killzone.

I'm not convinced: Scholar Visari oppressed and killed more Helghan than their "enemies" ever did. Not to mention that starting a war over grievances of the distant past is usually considered unjustified.

spring to mind- a planet's population are declared "subhuman" - most are exterminated by a deadly bioweapon, the rest put into stasis for eventual selling into slavery. This was carried out by Hethrir- on Vader's orders.

(Which should be used in every "Haw haw you can't shoot me, I have a hostage!" -situation but never is)

I think at least one Star Trek show did this.

But yeah, stun blasters are tragically underused. Particularly by police: even the dystopia of Pyscho Pass has their guns set to stun as the default and they have to get permission to use the kill mode.

Or Jedi even: what is more civilized about hacking someone's arm off compared to stunning them?

It's been argued quite plausibly that the Helghast have more claim to being the heroes in Killzone.

I'm not convinced: Scholar Visari oppressed and killed more Helghan than their "enemies" ever did. Not to mention that starting a war over grievances of the distant past is usually considered unjustified.

One thing I've honestly never gotten about the stun blasters in Star Wars; anytime a blaster is fired on stun setting, does it always fire that blue circle? Are some blasters made without those?

But on a film character front I always had a lot of respect not only for Palpatine, the best villian ever, but guys like Piett and Veers who were excellent officers doing their duty. Yeah they aren't on the 'right' side but that doesn't make admiration for them unworthy. I would imagine an officer like Isaac Brock was viewed as a villian by Americans during the war of 1812 but it was really just a matter of war being multifaceted and there being heroes on both sides.

Then the EU brought us Thrawn & Pellaeon, Kir Kanos, Soontir Fel and many more. Some were villians, some were anti heroes, but all were awesome.

Pellaeon remains my favorite Star Wars character period, including film and TV.

All should idolize him and treat him with reverence. After all he saved the Empire.

While Marvel Earth has the benefit of being some what grounded by Real Earth(they have to function) due to the writers living on it, the Galaxy Far Far Away has no such stabilizing influence. Thus The "republic" has to be stupider and more inept to give justification to the exsitance of the O3 and the jedi, and tolerant of their shenanigans.

Add to the fact most humans will choose any order is opposed to chaos, the Empire starts looking good in comparison.

long story short, the writers make Luke and company look good by making all alternatives (the goverment) look worse.

I suspect that if Jello were to draw parallels, they would be along the lines of:

"For the Emperor, think the Hollywood version of the Tsar- Kindly Old Man manipulated by Corrupt Rasputins. Only much nicer, and someone who actually overturned the previous, incompetent rule"
"For the rebels, think Bolsheviks- proclaiming their desire for freedom, but their leaders secretly desiring to rule tyrannically"
"For the rebel leadership- Bail is Lenin- the founder- Bel Iblis is Trotsky- the general, and Mon Mothma is Stalin- the nonentity who eventually sidelines Trotsky and rules brutally- only unlike in history, her career was cut short"

But on a film character front I always had a lot of respect not only for Palpatine, the best villian ever, but guys like Piett and Veers who were excellent officers doing their duty. Yeah they aren't on the 'right' side but that doesn't make admiration for them unworthy. I would imagine an officer like Isaac Brock was viewed as a villian by Americans during the war of 1812 but it was really just a matter of war being multifaceted and there being heroes on both sides.

Because this is fiction, and we know the good guys will win anyway, it's more fun to "root for" the bad guys. It's a kind of reading against the grain; both the plot and the narration are obviously biased towards the "good guys", so taking the perspective of the bad guys is a more stimulating intellectual exercise for people who like to do more with fiction than just go along with what the author tells you to think. And that, in turn, is essentially what fandom is all about, isn't it?

Similarly, if I ever were to argue for the merits of an authoritarian government in this context, it would be exactly that: an intellectual exercise, a (more-or-less serious) effort to understand the "other side".

Because we all wish the idea of a benevolent dictatorship actually worked.

If we were the dictator.

Quite so. Though, if Lord Vetinari existed, a lot of people would easily hand over power to him.

Not quite so simplistic. To use Ancient Rome as an example, the common people supported Caesar because despite everything else he generally catered to there interests and betterment. He was also more inclusive with brining in Non Romans and Gaul s at that into the Senate.
The Republicans/Senators against him despite their high ideals and decelerations of fighting tyranny, were generally a rich clique, who kept power just for themselves and were very remote from the ordinary people which they regarded with disdain.

It happens throughout history. In the American Revolution Patrick Henry declared give me Liberty or give me death. At the same time he was saying one of his slaves was escaping to freedom at the British lines. It's all a matter of perspective and where one is.